[Sbcl-devel] or not,
then --- convinced by JES (Re: upcoming release of sbcl-1.0.17)

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:18:05AM +0300, Juho Snellman wrote:
> william.newman@... (William Harold Newman) writes:
> > Schemes are being made to replace me but probably next week-ish, not
> > tomorrow-ish. Thus I intend to do one last routine release,
> > sbcl-1.0.17, in about five days.
> >
> > So today is the 20th :-|, albeit delayed by some fraction of the delay
> > in the release of sbcl-1.0.16. And as usual, please test vigorously
> > and patch conservatively until release.
>
> Would it be better to skip the release completely this month? There
> weren't very many changes due to the long freeze, and apparently at
> least two regressions (1.0.16.5, 1.0.16.11).
Yes, you're very likely right. Like you, I have less than the usual
enthusiasm for the state of the snapshot that exists at the moment. I
think a stable timeboxing policy has worked well, so I was going to
release anyway. And once you made me think about it, any policy
stability at this moment would be only superficial: after switching
organizational forms and figuring out what sbcl-1.1 release should be,
then things can settle down again, to whatever.
So unless there's some unreasonably-long stall in the replace-me
process, I'll just leave things alone for my successors to sort out.
--
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C
It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting
for our problems to go away. -- Bob the dinosaur

Thread view

Schemes are being made to replace me but probably next week-ish, not
tomorrow-ish. Thus I intend to do one last routine release,
sbcl-1.0.17, in about five days.
So today is the 20th :-|, albeit delayed by some fraction of the delay
in the release of sbcl-1.0.16. And as usual, please test vigorously
and patch conservatively until release.
--
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C
Ubi saeva indignatio ulterius cor lacerare nequit. -- Jonathan Swift's epitaph

William Harold Newman wrote:
> Schemes are being made to replace me but probably next week-ish, not
> tomorrow-ish. Thus I intend to do one last routine release,
> sbcl-1.0.17, in about five days.
Has anyone been able to successfully build sbcl against a recent glibc/gcc
(2.8, 4.3.0 respectively)? I haven't:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.steel-bank.devel/10963/focus=10965
In particular, the following contribs fail to build/run properly:
asdf-instalL, sb-simple-streams
I've got a machine that I can give any interested sbcl developer a remote
shell/login to help figure out what's going wrong.
-- Rex

Rex Dieter <rdieter@...> writes:
> William Harold Newman wrote:
>
>> Schemes are being made to replace me but probably next week-ish, not
>> tomorrow-ish. Thus I intend to do one last routine release,
>> sbcl-1.0.17, in about five days.
>
> Has anyone been able to successfully build sbcl against a recent glibc/gcc
> (2.8, 4.3.0 respectively)? I haven't:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.steel-bank.devel/10963/focus=10965
>
> In particular, the following contribs fail to build/run properly:
> asdf-instalL, sb-simple-streams
>
> I've got a machine that I can give any interested sbcl developer a remote
> shell/login to help figure out what's going wrong.
Can you find the areas in the build logs where those contrib systems
are built or tested, and identify the problem like that?
Alternatively, what happens when you try to run the SBCL self-tests
(with cd tests && sh ./run-tests.sh)?
Thanks,
Christophe

Rex Dieter <rdieter@...> writes:
> Christophe Rhodes wrote:
>> Can you find the areas in the build logs where those contrib systems
>> are built or tested, and identify the problem like that?
>
> First red flag is a huge traceback on trying to build asdf-install:
>
> unhandled SIMPLE-ERROR in thread #<SB-THREAD:THREAD "initial thread"
> {A6EB399}>:
> Error during processing of --eval option (LOAD #P"../asdf-stub.lisp"):
>
> The variable SB-BSD-SOCKETS-INTERNAL::EAI-NODATA is unbound.
I see references on the Interweb that EAI_NODATA is deprecated; on a
brief check, it's rather quieter about what it has been replaced with
(i.e. what getaddrinfo() returns if there is no address associated
with a given name, and whether that'd distinct from what happens if
there's no entry for that name in the host lookup databases). Anyone
know?
Best,
Christophe

william.newman@... (William Harold Newman) writes:
> Schemes are being made to replace me but probably next week-ish, not
> tomorrow-ish. Thus I intend to do one last routine release,
> sbcl-1.0.17, in about five days.
>
> So today is the 20th :-|, albeit delayed by some fraction of the delay
> in the release of sbcl-1.0.16. And as usual, please test vigorously
> and patch conservatively until release.
Would it be better to skip the release completely this month? There
weren't very many changes due to the long freeze, and apparently at
least two regressions (1.0.16.5, 1.0.16.11).
--
Juho Snellman

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:18:05AM +0300, Juho Snellman wrote:
> william.newman@... (William Harold Newman) writes:
> > Schemes are being made to replace me but probably next week-ish, not
> > tomorrow-ish. Thus I intend to do one last routine release,
> > sbcl-1.0.17, in about five days.
> >
> > So today is the 20th :-|, albeit delayed by some fraction of the delay
> > in the release of sbcl-1.0.16. And as usual, please test vigorously
> > and patch conservatively until release.
>
> Would it be better to skip the release completely this month? There
> weren't very many changes due to the long freeze, and apparently at
> least two regressions (1.0.16.5, 1.0.16.11).
Yes, you're very likely right. Like you, I have less than the usual
enthusiasm for the state of the snapshot that exists at the moment. I
think a stable timeboxing policy has worked well, so I was going to
release anyway. And once you made me think about it, any policy
stability at this moment would be only superficial: after switching
organizational forms and figuring out what sbcl-1.1 release should be,
then things can settle down again, to whatever.
So unless there's some unreasonably-long stall in the replace-me
process, I'll just leave things alone for my successors to sort out.
--
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C
It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting
for our problems to go away. -- Bob the dinosaur